9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r consideration of the case of the petitioner for paying the service tax under the Scheme as the Court cannot make operational the SVLDRS, 2019, especially when the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly after 1 year and 3 months from the last date of payment of determined amount of tax under the SVLDRS, 2019. Petition dismissed. - CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5942 of 2021. - - - Dated:- 6-1-2022 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN HON BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA PETITIONER. (BY SH. ABHIMANYU JHAMBA, ADVOCATE) RESPONDENTS. (SH. RAJINDER THAKUR, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT STANDING COUNSEL, FOR RESPONDENT-1) (SH. VIJAY ARORA, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENTS-2 3) O R D E R HON BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- A Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondents to accept the payment of taxes of ₹ 68,19,084/- declared by the Petitioner and accepted by the respondents under the Sabkas Vishwas (Legacy Dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness for the same. 8. The Range Officer accordingly initiated action for recovery of arrears vide letter dated 03.06.2021 and the instant petition was filed after more than 1 year and 3 months from the last date of payment of determined amount of tax under the SVLDRS, 2019. 9. Now, the moot question, in these circumstances, is whether the SVLDRS, 2019 can be made operational by the Court beyond the period for which it was formulated? 10. Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance upon the various judgments rendered by various High Courts which are enumerated below:- 1. Case No: WP(C) 2862/2021, M/s Brahmaputra Tele Productions Pvt. Ltd. versus The Union of India and others. 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10571/2020, Agroha Electronics versus Union of India and another. 3. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6962/2021, M/s Akshay Dan Charan, A proprietorship Firm, through its Proprietor vs. Union of India and others. 4. W.P. (MD) No. 19314 of 2020, P. Sikkandar vs. The Government of India and another, Madras High Court. 5. Writ Tax No.328 of 2021, M/s Shekhar Resorts Limited vs. Union of India and others. 11. Adverting to the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner-company owes ₹ 3,90,69,385/- under the SVLDRS which could be paid in 48 equal instalments. On the other hand, Ms. Hawelia has submitted that the aforesaid is the aggregate amount which relates to other financial years also and is not the amount for which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. She submits that as far as the present petition is concerned, the amount due is only ₹ 12,36,844.40/- as mentioned in Mandate Form No. 3 under the SVLDRS which the petitioner is seeking to pay. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it may not necessary to dwell on the aggregate amount the petitioner is supposed to pay, except the amount which the petitioner has admitted and willing to pay in this petition. As regards other liabilities, if any, it is a matter to be considered by the authorities on its own merit in accordance with law. However, as far as the amount of ₹ 12,36,844.40/- is concerned which is the subject matter of consideration in this petition, the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid admitted amount of ₹ 12,36,844.40/- within 45 days from today. As regards the dues mentioned by Mr. Keya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had to be made within certain time which was extended from time to time and the last extension was upto 30.06.2020. After that no further extension has been given and the scheme came to an end. Admittedly, the petitioner did not deposit the amount in question till 30.06.2020. The case of the petitioner is that on account of his personal ill health in the last few days of June 2020, he was totally indisposed and therefore could not make any payment. The petitioner has also set up a case that an attempt was made to make the payment physically, however, the system of the Department would not accept such payment and the petitioner could not make a payment through the portal of the Department. Be that as it may, the petitioner missed the last date for making the deposit, upon which, the petitioner s application stood automatically dismissed in terms of the provisions of the scheme. The Department thereafter started recovery, upon which, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record, we find that as per the admitted facts, the payment had to be made latest by 30.06.2020. The petitioner has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner did not comply with the said condition. I had allowed the writ petition by granting extension of time by seven more days. It is now brought to may notice by the learned standing counsel that as per Section 127(5) of the Finance Act, 2019, the payment will have to be made under the said scheme as directed by the designated committee. That apart, Rule 7 of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, states that every declarant shall pay electronically the amount as indicated in Form SVLDRS-4 issued by the designated committee on or before 30.06.2020. Inasmuch as, these provisions were not taken note of by me, the order dated 08.01.2021, allowing W.P.(MD) No. 19314 of 2020 is suo motu recalled and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 15. Thus, the overwhelming view taken by the various High Courts is that time for availing of the benefit of the Scheme cannot be extended as a matter of course, especially beyond the period it was promulgated. 16. We may, at this stage, also take note of the Division Bench judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No. 328 of 2021 wherein the Hon ble High Court clearly opined that the Scheme cannot be mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
